The publishers rights are not unlimited. Putting a few pages online could / should be considered within fair use.
Not having someone big do something like this would result in a lot of abandoned works being lost. This is a much more serious problem for society than whatever damage putting a few pages online would do to the publishers.
Hybrids are fossil fueled and represent a short term improvement over existing designs, not a solution to fossil fuel dependency. Anything involving a fossil fueled combustion engine is a dead end in the long run. I'm not sure I understand the significance of the Yaris hybrid introduction, the Yarris is far-far smaller than the Tesla S, and also significantly smaller than the Leaf.
The hydrogen economy needs a significant technological breakthrough to be feasible, the energy efficiency of the current technology is less than half of a pure electric solution (of less than a third if Tesla is to be believed). The main problem is the energy cost of compressing hydrogen, but efficient (clean) production of hydrogen is also a challenge. Solving the range problem for batteries with quick chargers, wireless charging on the road or changeable batteries seems more likely.
There must be something seriously wrong with the Drobo for the performance to be that bad. I have a 6 drive array (raid6) with WD Green 3TB drives, and I get ~300MB/s read and write speed.
Disabling the 8sec "green" head park timer improve response times, but it should not impact transfer speed in any significant way if left at it's default.
GP argues that the farmers would be civilly liable for "allowing" the GM to cross-pollinate over to their fields, even if there's nothing they could conceivably do to prevent it.
I don't see where you are going with the car crash analogy. You are only liable in a car crash if you caused it. The Monsanto case is more like someone suing you because they ran into your parked car.
If the recent events in Japan taught us anything, it's that nuclear power is much safer than most people think. A major earthquake with a devastating flooding caused some *minor* local contamination; compared to the energy produced during the plants lifetime the damage is insignificant.
The power plant was 40 years old, built on ancient technology. A modern plant would be even safer.
The tipping point is not the point of no return. The point of no return is the time when it is to late to prevent the tipping point from happening. Depending on the system in question, there could be a significant time delay between the two.
Se my other reply. Combining old stuff in a new way is also a from of innovation, but Apple is claiming ownership of everything old they polished and combined, that's not right.
From a technical standpoint there is very little innovation in the iphone (new technology). From a product standpoint it is / was innovative, just not on the scale everyone seems to think.
Combining old stuff in a new way can also be an innovation / the result of a innovative process. BUT it's not the kind of innovation that should lead to a government backed monopoly (patents).
Apple takes more credit and is given more credit than they are due. Steve was pissed at others for doing the same as they did; combine ideas from several sources. He found that unacceptable when Apple was one of the sources, failing to see that they did the same. That's hypocrisy.
Multitouch and pinch zoom predates the iphone with at least a decade. Apple bought a multi-touch specialist (FingerWorks) in 2005. Touch frienldy UI? try two decades (IBM Simon) Proximity sensors? Nokia 7650 in 1997-1998
Apple didn't "innovate" any of this stuff. They polished old ideas and let their marketing department do the rest.
There was never anything *new* in the iphone. Apple was/is good at chosing the right stuff to polish and combine, and have a kick ass marketing department.
^^ He was a US citizen. A US citizen was executed by the US government without trail. His alleged crime seems to have been protected speech under the 1st amendment.
The energy cost of going from the Earth to the Moon is enormous, going the other way is much cheaper. Current railgun technology would be capable of launching objects from the Moon to the Earth at ridiculous low cost (solar powered ~3kWh/kg). A solar farm of 1 square km should be sufficient to launch 1000 metric tons of material from the Moon each day.
It's not "on display" if it passes through the internet encrypted, and definitely not "a place open to the public" That's the same as saying a locked house is a place open to the public, or that private communication across the internet is impossible. You might as well claim that carrying a DVD on the street is a public performance of the DVD, it makes as much sense from a technical standpoint.
The judge specifically based the ruling on "the public" from the transmission clause, which is (2). (2) is not about time / place shifting, it merely states that it doesn't matter when or where the public receives the transmission. On demand streaming is "to perform or display a work publicly", if it's transmitted to the public. Defining a one time stream to one individual as transmission to the public is a bit of a stretch.
The argument boiled down to "since the receiver is part of the public, it is a public performance", which means that there can never be any transmission that's not public. If that was the intent of the law, it should not have included "to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public", but just stopped after "to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work". But it doesn't, it specifically states that it a public performance only if it's transmitted to the public, or displayed at a place open to the public. A one-time private stream should not be affected.
He's basing it on the transmission part (2). His definition of "the public" found in section 2 is what's causing the trouble. I can't find any valid reference or definition were "to one specific person" is equivalent with "to the public".
To perform or display a work "publicly" means - (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
An easy and quick fix for this is to create two companies. One is a co-op, where all renters pay $10 to be co-owners. They now own 1/xxth of a time-share DVD player. This should not be run as a for profit business, but as a true co-op. The $10 is returned to you if you ever decide to quit the co-op.
Another (unrelated) company provides services to your time-shared DVD player, by providing you with disks to play in your own player. This is a for profit company, renting out discs.
Now you're the one transmitting the content of the DVD and both the receiving and transmitting devices are owned and controlled by you, something that's within earlier interpretations of fair use ( time or place shift like Slingbox etc.)
1) Hyper-V has worked fine with Linux hosts for a long time, this is just a code cleanup and bug fix for existing Hyper-V specific drivers in the kernel. 2) VMWare also needs guest drivers to get Linux to run as it should. These are not part of the Linux kernel. VMware releases their drivers separably, but you still need them to make full use of the server.
Microsoft decided it would be easier for their users if they got their drivers included in the kernel. More work for Microsoft and the kernel maintainers, less work for the users.
This has nothing to do with windows, it's drivers for running Linux better in Hyper-V. Despite what you might think, Hyper-V != Windows.
Unless you're a VMware employee, I fail to see why you'd want to exclude Linux from working in Hyper-V.
You want windows? Go use windows.
You want linux? Use linux.
This I just don't understand. Are you saying that if you have an existing Windows server infrastructure, you should be prevented from using Linux servers when that's more suitable?
Getting approval for putting a Linux server as a guest on your existing virtualized infrastructure (pitch as a virtual appliance if necessary) is usually way easier that getting approval for changing your whole IT infrastructure (changing hypervisor or using two different ones).
So let me get this straight: Microsoft is BAD for releasing Linux drivers VMware is GOOD for releasing Linux drivers
It's OK to run Windows from within Linux, but not the other way around? I fail to see what your argument is.
Does improvements in Hyper-V drivers make Linux better? Yes Does it benefit those who don't use Hyper-V? Yes, indirectly by increasing the user base, thus providing more incentive for others to release software for Linux. Does it benefit existing Microsoft customers the most? Yes (but why is that a problem?)
Slashdot Mirror
The publishers rights are not unlimited.
Putting a few pages online could / should be considered within fair use.
Not having someone big do something like this would result in a lot of abandoned works being lost. This is a much more serious problem for society than whatever damage putting a few pages online would do to the publishers.
Hybrids are fossil fueled and represent a short term improvement over existing designs, not a solution to fossil fuel dependency. Anything involving a fossil fueled combustion engine is a dead end in the long run. I'm not sure I understand the significance of the Yaris hybrid introduction, the Yarris is far-far smaller than the Tesla S, and also significantly smaller than the Leaf.
The hydrogen economy needs a significant technological breakthrough to be feasible, the energy efficiency of the current technology is less than half of a pure electric solution (of less than a third if Tesla is to be believed). The main problem is the energy cost of compressing hydrogen, but efficient (clean) production of hydrogen is also a challenge. Solving the range problem for batteries with quick chargers, wireless charging on the road or changeable batteries seems more likely.
Short answer: yes
Long answer: no
Seriously? Your're blaming 1MB/s on the drives?
There must be something seriously wrong with the Drobo for the performance to be that bad.
I have a 6 drive array (raid6) with WD Green 3TB drives, and I get ~300MB/s read and write speed.
Disabling the 8sec "green" head park timer improve response times, but it should not impact transfer speed in any significant way if left at it's default.
GP argues that the farmers would be civilly liable for "allowing" the GM to cross-pollinate over to their fields, even if there's nothing they could conceivably do to prevent it.
I don't see where you are going with the car crash analogy. You are only liable in a car crash if you caused it. The Monsanto case is more like someone suing you because they ran into your parked car.
But there would had to be some kind of negligence on your part for them to win.
How can you be liable if there are no actions taken on your part to create the situation, and no reasonable measures you can take to prevent it?
If the recent events in Japan taught us anything, it's that nuclear power is much safer than most people think.
A major earthquake with a devastating flooding caused some *minor* local contamination; compared to the energy produced during the plants lifetime the damage is insignificant.
The power plant was 40 years old, built on ancient technology. A modern plant would be even safer.
The tipping point is not the point of no return.
The point of no return is the time when it is to late to prevent the tipping point from happening.
Depending on the system in question, there could be a significant time delay between the two.
Se my other reply. Combining old stuff in a new way is also a from of innovation, but Apple is claiming ownership of everything old they polished and combined, that's not right.
From a technical standpoint there is very little innovation in the iphone (new technology). From a product standpoint it is / was innovative, just not on the scale everyone seems to think.
Combining old stuff in a new way can also be an innovation / the result of a innovative process.
BUT it's not the kind of innovation that should lead to a government backed monopoly (patents).
Apple takes more credit and is given more credit than they are due.
Steve was pissed at others for doing the same as they did; combine ideas from several sources. He found that unacceptable when Apple was one of the sources, failing to see that they did the same. That's hypocrisy.
Multitouch and pinch zoom predates the iphone with at least a decade. Apple bought a multi-touch specialist (FingerWorks) in 2005.
Touch frienldy UI? try two decades (IBM Simon)
Proximity sensors? Nokia 7650 in 1997-1998
Apple didn't "innovate" any of this stuff.
They polished old ideas and let their marketing department do the rest.
There was never anything *new* in the iphone.
Apple was/is good at chosing the right stuff to polish and combine, and have a kick ass marketing department.
^^
He was a US citizen.
A US citizen was executed by the US government without trail.
His alleged crime seems to have been protected speech under the 1st amendment.
No.
It Will be gone.
I'm sure they'll be really good at stopping the sun from swallowing us when it goes red giant on us.
Without manned spaceflight, mankind is doomed.
The energy cost of going from the Earth to the Moon is enormous, going the other way is much cheaper. /kg).
Current railgun technology would be capable of launching objects from the Moon to the Earth at ridiculous low cost (solar powered ~3kWh
A solar farm of 1 square km should be sufficient to launch 1000 metric tons of material from the Moon each day.
Microsoft today and Microsoft a few years ago are two different companies.
It's not "on display" if it passes through the internet encrypted, and definitely not "a place open to the public"
That's the same as saying a locked house is a place open to the public, or that private communication across the internet is impossible.
You might as well claim that carrying a DVD on the street is a public performance of the DVD, it makes as much sense from a technical standpoint.
The judge specifically based the ruling on "the public" from the transmission clause, which is (2). (2) is not about time / place shifting, it merely states that it doesn't matter when or where the public receives the transmission. On demand streaming is "to perform or display a work publicly", if it's transmitted to the public. Defining a one time stream to one individual as transmission to the public is a bit of a stretch.
The argument boiled down to "since the receiver is part of the public, it is a public performance", which means that there can never be any transmission that's not public. If that was the intent of the law, it should not have included "to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public", but just stopped after "to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work". But it doesn't, it specifically states that it a public performance only if it's transmitted to the public, or displayed at a place open to the public. A one-time private stream should not be affected.
He's basing it on the transmission part (2).
His definition of "the public" found in section 2 is what's causing the trouble.
I can't find any valid reference or definition were "to one specific person" is equivalent with "to the public".
To perform or display a work "publicly" means -
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or
at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a
normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is
gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or
display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to
the public, by means of any device or process, whether the
members of the public capable of receiving the performance or
display receive it in the same place or in separate places and
at the same time or at different times.
An easy and quick fix for this is to create two companies.
One is a co-op, where all renters pay $10 to be co-owners. They now own 1/xxth of a time-share DVD player. This should not be run as a for profit business, but as a true co-op. The $10 is returned to you if you ever decide to quit the co-op.
Another (unrelated) company provides services to your time-shared DVD player, by providing you with disks to play in your own player. This is a for profit company, renting out discs.
Now you're the one transmitting the content of the DVD and both the receiving and transmitting devices are owned and controlled by you, something that's within earlier interpretations of fair use ( time or place shift like Slingbox etc.)
1) Hyper-V has worked fine with Linux hosts for a long time, this is just a code cleanup and bug fix for existing Hyper-V specific drivers in the kernel.
2) VMWare also needs guest drivers to get Linux to run as it should. These are not part of the Linux kernel. VMware releases their drivers separably, but you still need them to make full use of the server.
Microsoft decided it would be easier for their users if they got their drivers included in the kernel. More work for Microsoft and the kernel maintainers, less work for the users.
This has nothing to do with windows, it's drivers for running Linux better in Hyper-V.
Despite what you might think, Hyper-V != Windows.
Unless you're a VMware employee, I fail to see why you'd want to exclude Linux from working in Hyper-V.
You want windows? Go use windows.
You want linux? Use linux.
This I just don't understand. Are you saying that if you have an existing Windows server infrastructure, you should be prevented from using Linux servers when that's more suitable?
Getting approval for putting a Linux server as a guest on your existing virtualized infrastructure (pitch as a virtual appliance if necessary) is usually way easier that getting approval for changing your whole IT infrastructure (changing hypervisor or using two different ones).
So let me get this straight:
Microsoft is BAD for releasing Linux drivers
VMware is GOOD for releasing Linux drivers
It's OK to run Windows from within Linux, but not the other way around?
I fail to see what your argument is.
Does improvements in Hyper-V drivers make Linux better? Yes
Does it benefit those who don't use Hyper-V? Yes, indirectly by increasing the user base, thus providing more incentive for others to release software for Linux.
Does it benefit existing Microsoft customers the most? Yes (but why is that a problem?)
More than that - 71% of 635 apps on Android and iPhone is NOT the same as 71% of Android apps or even 71% of apps period.
It's not 71% of 635 apps. It's 71% of the 68 apps with they found containing GPL and/or Apache licensed code.